Pages

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Supreme Court to weigh employer-union organizing deals

Supreme Court to weigh employer-union organizing deals

By Amanda Becker8 hours ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court will hear
a case on Wednesday that could have a major impact on the U.S. labor
movement as it questions whether agreements often made between unions
and private-sector employers over unionization campaigns violate an
anti-corruption law.
The court is examining deals known as
"neutrality agreements" in which employers agree not to campaign against
unionization. The agreements have been in use for decades and the case
could change how unions go about organizing.
If the justices find
the pacts are a "thing of value," prohibiting employers and unions from
entering into them, it would be a major blow to organized labor as it
struggles to bolster membership, said those familiar with the practice.
"The stakes could not be higher for the union movement," Harvard University Law School Professor Benjamin Sachs said.
"Almost all of the successful unionizing efforts in the private sector
in the last couple of decades have come through the type of private
organizing agreements that are at issue in this case," he said.
The case, Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, was brought by an employee of
Mardi Gras Gaming, a casino and dog track in Hollywood, Florida.
Martin Mulhall, the employee, said his employer violated the Labor
Management Relations Act when it agreed to allow the union Unite Here
onto its property to organize workers, and when the company agreed to
give the union contact information for employees in exchange for the
union's support on a ballot initiative.
"THINGS OF VALUE"
The labor relations statute bars employers from providing "thing of
value" to unions and union officials. Mulhall argued that the access
Mardi Gras Gaming gave Unite Here was valuable during the union's
unionization drive.
A federal trial court dismissed Mulhall's
case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals departed from precedent in
two other circuits and reversed, saying that "it seems apparent that
organizing assistance can be a thing of value."
If the Supreme
Court agrees, employers and unions that enter into agreements with such
terms could be committing felonies, legal experts told Reuters.
Arthur Smith, a Chicago-based attorney at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart who represents employers, said that the agreements
between unions and employers today are very different than those used in
the 1980s.
Smith said that in the beginning, neutrality
agreements were very simple and stated an employer would remain neutral
while a union attempted to organize a workforce.
Today, he said,
popular add-ons include allowing the union to access the workplace,
providing it with contact information and recognizing its position as a
bargaining representative if the majority of employees sign commitment
cards.
SECRET BALLOT WINS DIFFICULT
Unions have used the
press and public demonstrations to wage "corporate campaigns" to
convince employers to agree to these provisions in an environment where
union density in the private sector has declined and it is increasingly
difficult to win secret-ballot elections, Smith said.
Smith filed
a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Mulhall on behalf of the Council
on Labor Law Equality, a trade group that represents employers in labor
disputes in federal courts.
Craig Becker, the general counsel of
the AFL-CIO, the country's largest federation of labor unions, said
that in Mulhall one section of the labor relations statute is taken out
of context. Congress intended to criminalize the exchange of money and
straightforward bribery, Becker said.
"This is about everyday
accommodations between employers and unions that take place all the
time," Becker said. The AFL-CIO filed a brief supporting the position of
Unite Here.
Harvard's Sachs said the Supreme Court could decide
that it should not have taken the case for procedural reasons, leaving
for another day the issue of neutrality agreements.
(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Bill Trott)